MediaWiki talk:Bad image list

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The images listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list are prohibited by technical means from being displayed inline on pages, besides specified exceptions. Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical.


Making requests: Requests for additions, removals, or exceptions may be made on this page. Any administrator can make changes to the list. If there is no response after a reasonable time, consider repeating a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
Posting to the list: The format is as follows: Only bulleted list items (lines starting with "*") are considered. The first link on a line must be the link to the high-risk image. It is recommended that you use an initial colon in this link, so people can view this page without seeing all the restricted images. Any subsequent links on the same line are exceptions, i.e. articles where that image is allowed to be displayed inline. Text outside of links is ignored and can be used for comments. Piped links cannot be used. Please check the spelling of potential duplicate images before removing.
Image description page: A bot will place {{Restricted use}} on the image description page. This will advise users how to request that the image to be allowed on articles (that is, to expand the except list for it).
Removal from the list: When removing deleted images from the list, please double-check that the relevant image talk page has been deleted as well.


I am boldly removing swastikas from three talk page sigs Talk:Interstate 75 (already done), Talk:Son of a bitch, Talk:Bitch (insult)/Archive 1.

These can therefore be removed from the appropriate exception list.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

I've tidied up some of the exceptions. I note we are using other non-listed swastikas. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

1 more redlink[edit]

Remove this one, too. (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Ale_Jrbtalk 16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


I can't imagine anything other than constructive use for this image. After all, whatever got it added was probably temporary, so please remove it. (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added this image, as the original reasons for adding it persist as of this day. If you want to see some unconstructive usage, see the history for Ulaanbaatar as an example. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Remember: If every image ever used by a vandal were on this list, it would be nightmarishly long, and there's nothing about this image that makes it especially shocking or offensive to viewers. (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
And whatever got it added was probably temporary. So please remove it. (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bad Image List should probably be reserved for the "shocking" and "offensive" images; these include controversial images. In fact, this image has been used constructively more times than it has been used for vandalism. (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, if every image ever used by a vandal were on this list, it would be well over 50 MB long, and while this may satisfy some admins, it will not satisfy all of them. (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not every image, and it will not be in the list forever. It's one image that isn't offensive, but is used in a way which will cause shock by crashing your browser. This image has been added for vandalism more times than it has been added constructively. It won't be removed at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This seems a bit preemptive. One user using this image, and it instantly goes back in? (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, the Bad Image list should probably be reserved for the more "disturbing" and "offensive" images; these include (a) controversial images, and (b) images that contain genitalia. (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just so the rest of us know without having to delve deeply into ancient history, could you please tell us what the reason for addition is, Zzuuzz? Gotta admit, my curiosity is piqued. If it's truly beansy, please drop me an email. Risker (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've linked to Ulan Bator above (see WP:LTA/SGK). This fit of 200 or so accounts over several months was the reason for the original listing - it's a favourite image and Ulan Bator is by no means the only page affected, as some will remember. The image was recently removed from the blacklist, which was fine. Since then, the vandal has been recently active[fact]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    This SPI is probably the most useful page. Most recent account: MongolAustralian -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks, Zzuuzz. It might make things easier to put the most frequently targeted articles on PC-extended, although darned if I know what remedy to link it to. There's bound to be one, since so many have to do with religion and politics... Risker (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a problem, but the range of articles and namespaces is too large. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File: Male and Female Pubic Hair.jpg[edit]

Found a vandal using this picture earlier - I can't imagine that it would be used in many other situations except for vandalism. — Chevvin 03:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Would you please add the Hentai article to the list of articles for which this image is allowed? That article has linked to the image since this edit, but the link is dead, possibly since the image was restricted.—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Bump (please). The image is on-topic for the article in question.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

4 redlinks[edit]

Delete these from the list. (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)